What do you do if a candidate's claims don't add up?

I had a candidate claim they could beat me in an arm wrestle once. We'd never met and this was on a phone call so I'm not even sure what they were basing the claim on but I thought to myself "this candidate's claim doesn't add up." So I did what anyone would do. I sent them the coordinates to a service station on the M25, said I'd meet them there the next day and we'd settle it. Turns out, she did beat me in an arm wrestle. Sorry, what was the question again?

If a candidate's claims don't align, verify the information, ask for clarification, and conduct follow-up interviews. Seek references and consider red flags. Document findings, consult with colleagues or HR, and communicate decisions clearly and professionally. Conduct background verification before sending the offer letter to maintain transparency and integrity.

It would depend on the circumstances. If a candidate was off by a month for the time period they worked at a job six years ago that could easily be a innocent mistake or possible explained. If a candidate said they have a MBA and they do not that would disqualify the candidate.

- Clarify expectations & maintain professionalism: Set clear expectations in regards to the KPAs, tech stack for the open role, showcase respectful demeanor throughout the process. Avoid making assumptions/ accusations while seeking to gather all relevant information - Seek Clarification: If there are discrepancies/ inconsistencies in the candidate's explanations, ask for clarification. Express genuine interest in their candidature while remaining objective in your questioning - Provide opportunity to demonstrate : Give a chance to showcase their skills through technical assessment, coding challenge and practical scenarios. Ask about specific projects they've worked on, tools/ technologies they've used and the outcomes they've achieved

The best way I have found to verify the facts is by following a structured method of questioning, making sure each question relates to their real-world experiences and then follow up with asking for a positive sound bite to confirm this information - then check their reaction... nothing like being called out on something!

It's crucial to have an open conversation with the candidate to get to the bottom of any differences. Assuming things without hearing them out can lead to misunderstandings. By lending an ear to their side, you can grasp the situation better and figure out if there were any misunderstandings or errors. This way, both sides get a fair chance to clear things up and ensure transparency.

Open dialogue is crucial for fostering communication, understanding, and collaboration within a team or organization. It involves creating an environment where all members feel comfortable expressing their thoughts, ideas, concerns, and feedback openly and without fear of judgment. To promote open dialogue, leaders should actively listen to their team members, encourage diverse perspectives, and create opportunities for discussion and exchange of ideas. Transparency, honesty, and mutual respect are essential principles that underpin open dialogue, enabling teams to address challenges, resolve conflicts, and work towards shared goals effectively.

In the next step, engage in an open dialogue with the candidate. Maintain a non-confrontational tone, allowing them to explain any discrepancies. Listen actively and give them the benefit of the doubt, as there may be valid reasons for inconsistencies. This fosters a respectful relationship and enables the candidate to clarify their position or address any misunderstandings.

Tact is key here. Pointing out the discrepancy and asking for help in understanding the difference is a good way to open the door to more honest conversation without putting the candidate on the defensive.

Having a conversation where both sides can talk openly. After checking the facts, you should calmly talk to the candidate about any differences you found. Listen carefully to their side without accusing them. They might have good reasons for what seems wrong. This step helps keep a good relationship and gives the candidate a chance to explain or fix things.

Assessing integrity is essential for maintaining trust and ethical standards within a team or organization. It involves evaluating individuals' honesty, reliability, and adherence to ethical principles in their actions and decision-making processes. To assess integrity, observe consistency between words and actions, reliability in meeting commitments, and transparency in communication. Look for indicators of ethical behavior, such as honesty, fairness, and accountability, in both professional and personal interactions. Additionally, consider seeking feedback from colleagues or references who can provide insights into the individual's character and conduct.

After discussing the discrepancies with the candidate, assess their integrity based on their responses. Consider whether their explanations are plausible and align with the evidence. This assessment evaluates honesty and transparency. A candidate owning up to a mistake and providing a reasonable explanation may still be a good fit, depending on the role's context.

Honesty & transparency is absolutely everything - experienced hirers/recruiters will get gut feels if you're blagging it, so don't.

Les retours des anciens employeurs ou collègues peuvent fournir des informations précieuses sur la meilleur fa?on d'intégrer un nouveau collaborateur.

Judging how truthful and honest someone is. After talking to the candidate about the differences, think about whether their explanations make sense and match the evidence. This isn't just about checking facts but also about seeing if they're being honest. Even if someone admits to a mistake and explains it well, they might still be a good choice for the job, depending on what it is.

"Decision time" signifies a critical juncture where choices must be made. During this phase, it's essential to gather all relevant information, assess potential outcomes, and consider the implications of each decision carefully. Prioritize clarity, transparency, and alignment with organizational goals when making decisions. Additionally, involve key stakeholders, seek input from team members, and weigh the risks and benefits associated with each option. While some decisions may require swift action, others may benefit from deliberation and thorough analysis. Ultimately, aim to make informed decisions that are in the best interest of the team or organization, considering both short-term needs and long-term objectives.

When facing discrepancies, it's crucial to assess their significance in relation to the candidate's overall suitability for the role. Minor inconsistencies coupled with strong qualifications and integrity may warrant proceeding with the hiring process. However, significant unexplained disparities could raise red flags that require further evaluation.

When you find some shady stuff, deciding what to do isn't always easy. You should consider how impactful it is compared to whether the person's a good fit for the position. If it's just a small hiccup and they're solid otherwise, you might roll with 'em. But if there's some major weirdness going on with no explanation, that's a serious warning sign you can't ignore. Go get 'em!

Before making any decisions, gather all available information about the discrepancies. This might include reviewing resumes, conducting interviews, and verifying credentials. Give the candidates an opportunity to explain the discrepancies. There may be legitimate reasons for the inconsistencies, such as misunderstandings or outdated information. Consult your organization's policies and procedures for handling discrepancies in candidate information. Ensure that you're following established protocols and guidelines.

Assess the potential risks and consequences of hiring each candidate, taking into account factors such as integrity, trustworthiness, and job performance. And for that it's really important to Conduct further background checks or verification processes to ensure accuracy and completeness of the candidate's information. This demonstrates your commitment to their success and can help mitigate potential risks.

Assess the potential risks associated with the discrepancies in the candidate's claims. Consider the impact on the role, team dynamics, and organizational reputation.Gather additional information through background checks, reference checks, or follow-up discussions with the candidate. Verify critical details to mitigate potential risks and ensure the accuracy of the candidate's claims.By proactively mitigating risks when faced with discrepancies in a candidate's claims, you can minimize potential negative impacts on the organization and make more informed hiring decisions

When proceeding with a candidate despite discrepancies, mitigate risks by implementing additional background checks or a probationary period for close monitoring. Document the decision-making process and steps taken to address discrepancies for future reference.

Mitigating risks involves identifying potential threats or uncertainties that could impact the success of a project or organization and taking proactive measures to reduce their likelihood or impact. Start by conducting a thorough risk assessment to identify potential risks and their potential consequences. Prioritize risks based on their severity and likelihood of occurrence. Develop risk mitigation strategies to address each identified risk, such as implementing preventive measures, transferring risk through insurance or contracts, or creating contingency plans to minimize the impact if a risk does occur. Regularly monitor and review risks throughout the project or organizational lifecycle, adjusting mitigation strategies as needed.

References taken verbally are the best way of checking. As is checking & validating clearance checks for certain industries/niches, e.g. defence, education etc.

Learning lessons involves reflecting on past experiences, both successes, and failures, to extract valuable insights that can inform future actions and decisions. Start by conducting a thorough analysis of past projects or initiatives, identifying what went well and what could have been improved. Encourage open and honest feedback from team members to gain diverse perspectives on lessons learned. Document key takeaways and develop actionable recommendations for future projects or endeavors. Implement a culture of continuous improvement, where learning from both successes and failures is embraced and integrated into organizational processes and decision-making.

Root Cause Analysis: Conduct a thorough analysis to understand how the discrepancy was initially missed in the recruiting process. Identify any gaps or weaknesses in your screening, verification, or interviewing procedures that contributed to the oversight. Training and Development: Provide additional training and development opportunities for recruiters and hiring managers to enhance their skills in identifying red flags and conducting thorough candidate assessments. This might include workshops, seminars, or online courses focused on effective interviewing techniques and verification procedures.

Out of every situation, good or bad, we can always learn. Regardless if the team decides to move forward or not, it's still important to come together as a hiring team and be on the same page moving forward. A great way to ensure this happens is by having solid documentation and feedback practices during the interview process so you have data to reflect on. Once you're able to gather all of the data and make your final decision, then it's time to look back on what worked, what didn't, and what the team can improve on. (i.e ask more specific questions, tech tasks, etc.) A practice in every hiring process should be debriefing at the end of every candidates interview journey to reflect on these lessons.

Recruiters can verify a candidate's claims of competing offers through a different methods Request for Documentation They can ask the applicant to provide written offer from the other companies.This could be in form of offer letters or emails outlining the details of the competing offers Contact the Other Companies Recruiters or HR professionals can reach out to the other companies directly to verify the details of the competing offers.However, it's important to do so in a respectful and professional manner, keeping in mind the candidate's privacy Reference Checks They can also conduct reference checks with the candidate's previous employers or colleagues to gather additional information about the candidate's job search and competing offers

Ask more questions. Sometimes I'm absolutely correct and someone is full of it. Other times they didn't understand my question, or I didn't understand their answer.

Clarify & Verify - The first thing to do is repeat back to them, "So if I'm understanding you correctly..." and see if there was a miscommunication or additional information they add. If there are still concerns - ASK QUESTIONS. Lastly, references are a great way to fill any holes or gaps.

ASK LinkedIn won't let me submit just one word so this is me typing more in order to hit submit and the real answer is what I wrote above.

If a candidate's claims don't add up, here are some steps you can take: Fact-check:Do your own research! Look for independent verification of the candidate's claims. Reliable sources include news articles from reputable publications, government websites, and academic journals. Look for bias:Be wary of sources that are clearly biased for or against the candidate. Look for sources that present the facts in a neutral way. Seek multiple perspectives Read about the candidate's positions from a variety of sources, including those that support and oppose them. This will give you a more well-rounded view of their stances.